Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. M M / shanwang chen / feifei lin / HUA ZHANG / L H / Eddie Nash / Heather Brooker
Claim Number: FA2111001973471
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is M M / shanwang chen / feifei lin / HUA ZHANG / L H / Eddie Nash / Heather Brooker (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <bink-camera.com>, <blinkcamera.one>, <blinkcamera-us.shop>, <blinkingsmartproduct.info>, <blinkonline.shop>, <outdoorcamera-blink.store>, and <ringsmartcam.shop>, registered with Dynadot, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 16, 2021; the Forum received payment on November 16, 2021.
On November 17, 2021, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bink-camera.com>, <blinkcamera.one>, <blinkcamera-us.shop>, <blinkingsmartproduct.info>, <blinkonline.shop>, <outdoorcamera-blink.store>, and <ringsmartcam.shop> domain names are registered with Dynadot, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Dynadot, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On November 22, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 13, 2021 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@bink-camera.com, postmaster@blinkcamera.one, postmaster@blinkcamera-us.shop, postmaster@blinkingsmartproduct.info, postmaster@blinkonline.shop, postmaster@outdoorcamera-blink.store, postmaster@ringsmartcam.shop. Also on November 22, 2021, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On December 16, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.”
Complainant submits that these domains are owned by the same individual or entity for at least the following reasons:
a) The disputed domain names were all registered with Dynadot in a 6-week timeframe.
b) The disputed domain names <blinkcamera.one>, <blinkonline.shop>, <blinkingsmartproduct.info>, <outdoorcamera-blink.store>, and <ringsmartcam.shop> were registered in a 5-day span.
c) All the disputed domains are nominally hosted with Cloudflare.
d) All the disputed domain names have the same structure in that they combine Complainant’s camera brands with descriptive/generic or geographic terms associated with Complainant’s business.
e) All the websites are used for retail stores that promote third-party cameras that compete with Complainant.
f) The disputed domain names <blinkcamera.one>, <blinkingsmartproduct.info>, <outdoorcamera-blink.store>, and <ringsmartcam.shop> use the same privacy policy which is copied from and refers (presumably in error) to SouthernCarlson.com.
g) The disputed domain names <blinkingsmartproduct.info>, <outdoorcamera-blink.store>, and <ringsmartcam.shop> also have substantially identical return policies.
h) The disputed domain names <bink-camera.com> and <blinkcamera-us.shop> have substantially identical privacy and return policies.
The Panel notes that Complainant’s allegation (b) above is not correct. From the evidence submitted by Complainant it can be seen that the <outdoorcamera-blink.store> domain name was registered on October 8, 2021; the <blinkcamera.one>, <blinkingsmartproduct.info>, and <ringsmartcam.shop> domain names were registered between October 31, 2021 and November 2, 2021. The other allegations are correct.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names <blinkcamera.one>, <blinkingsmartproduct.info>, <outdoorcamera-blink.store>, and <ringsmartcam.shop> are under common control as the websites use a common privacy policy, three of the disputed names were registered within three days, and three have substantially identical return policies. Further, all of the domain names were registered with the same registrar and use the same hosting agency. This is sufficient to find that the <blinkcamera.one>, <blinkingsmartproduct.info>, <outdoorcamera-blink.store>, and <ringsmartcam.shop> domain names were registered by the same domain name holder. See The Valspar Corporation v. Zhou Zhiliang / zhouzhiliang / Zhiliang Zhou / Eric Chow / Visspa Ltd., FA100800133934 (Forum Sept. 28, 2010); see also BBY Solutions, Inc. v. White Apple / Dev Kumar, FA1805001787251 (Forum June 20, 2018).
Consequently, the Panel will rule on those disputed domain names. Hereafter, those domain names are collectively referred to as “the disputed domain names”, and the registrants are collectively referred to as “Respondent”.
The Panel notes that, apart from the elements noted above, there are no similarities between the resolving websites. In particular, there are no similarities between the websites for the domain names <blinkcamera.one>, <blinkingsmartproduct.info>, <outdoorcamera-blink.store>, and <ringsmartcam.shop> and the websites for the domain names <bink-camera.com>, <blinkcamera-us.shop>, and <blinkonline.shop>. The Panel finds that Complainant has not sufficiently presented evidence demonstrating that the <bink-camera.com>, <blinkcamera-us.shop>, and <blinkonline.shop> domain names are under the control of the same entity as the <blinkcamera.one>, <blinkingsmartproduct.info>, <outdoorcamera-blink.store>, and <ringsmartcam.shop> domain names.
Under the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 4(c), the Panel must determine which domain names are commonly owned and elect which Respondent to proceed against, as a UDRP decision can proceed against only one Respondent. The Panel is then required to dismiss the Complaint in relation to the domain names not commonly owned by the chosen Respondent.
Accordingly, the Panel will proceed against the entity that controls the domain names <blinkcamera.one>, <blinkingsmartproduct.info>, <outdoorcamera-blink.store>, and <ringsmartcam.shop> and it will dismiss the Complainant against the domain names <bink-camera.com>, <blinkcamera-us.shop>, and <blinkonline.shop>.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it launched <amazon.com> in July 1995 and today is one of the world’s leading retailers, offering products and services to more than 100 countries around the globe. Complainant also operates the website <blinkforhome.com> and offers Blink-branded cameras and smart home security devices that are affordable, innovative, and easy-to-use. Armed with two-way audio, HD video, customizable motion detection, and more — Blink smart home security devices allow consumers to see, hear, and speak from the free Blink Home Monitor smartphone app. Complainant introduced Blink in a 2014 Kickstarter campaign and began shipping Blink devices in 2015. Today, Blink battery-powered Outdoor and Indoor cameras and the Blink Mini plug-in cam help consumers protect what matters most no matter where they are. Complainant also operates the website <ring.com> and offers Ring-branded cameras and home security products and services including the well-known Ring Doorbell. Launched in 2014, and named one of Time’s Top Gadgets that year, the Ring Doorbell streams live audio and video of a home’s front doorstep directly to a smartphone or tablet, allowing homeowners to answer the door from anywhere and get notified in real-time when visitors press the doorbell or trigger built-in motion sensors. Complainant also offers Ring Alarm which was named #1 in Customer Satisfaction for DIY Home Security Systems by J.D. Power in 2020. Complainant also offers Ring Security Cameras. Complainant has rights in the BLINK and RING mark through its registration of the marks in, respectively, Singapore in 2018 and the United States in 2015. The marks are registered elsewhere around the world and they are famous.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLINK or RING marks as they incorporate one the marks in their entirety, merely adding the generic terms “camera”, “smart”, “product”, “outdoor”, and/or “cam”, or adding “ing” to the BLINK mark, as well as adding a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) (“.one”, “.info”, “.store”, or “shop”).
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use the BLINK or RING marks in any way. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain names resolve to online stores that offer third party products that compete with Complainant’s business. At one time, the <blinkcamera.one> domain name was redirected to Complainant’s official Blink home page <blinkforhome.com>.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith as they resolve to websites that offer products and services that compete with Complainant’s business. At one time, the <blinkcamera.one> domain name was redirected to Complainant’s official Blink home page <blinkforhome.com>. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BLINK and RING marks.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns rights in the marks BLINK and RING and uses them to market home security devices.
Complainant’s rights in its marks date back to, respectively, 2018 and 2015.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks.
The disputed domain names were registered in 2021.
The resolving websites offer for sale products that compete with those of Complainant. One of the disputed domain names was redirected to one of Complainant’s legitimate websites.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant’s BLINK or RING marks in their entirety, merely adding the generic terms “camera”, “smart” , “product”, “outdoor”, and/or “cam”, or adding “ing” to the mark BLINK, in addition to adding a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) (“.one”, “.info”, “.store”, or “shop”). Registration of a domain name that contains a mark in its entirety and adds generic terms and a gTLD does not distinguish the domain name from the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Starbucks Corporation d/b/a Starbucks Coffee Company v. Waseem A Ali / Micron Web Services, FA 1785616 (Forum June 8, 2018) (finding the <starbucksreal.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the STARBUCKS mark, as “the addition of the generic term ‘real’ to Complainant's mark does not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy.”); see also Brooks Sports, Inc. v. chen jiajin, FA 101001930406 (Forum Mar. 30, 2021) (finding that “adding random letters and a gTLD…fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name); see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Sergey Valerievich Kireev / Kireev, FA 1784651 (Forum June 5, 2018) (holding that the domain name consists of the Complainant’s mark and adds “the letters ‘btc’ and the gTLD .com which do not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s mark.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrants as “Heather Brooker / feifei lin / Eddie Nash / shanwang chen”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The disputed domain names resolve to online stores that offer third party products that compete with Complainant’s business. Use of a disputed domain name to offer products that compete with a complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (“use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
Further, at one time, one of the disputed domain names was redirected to one of Complainant’s official web sites. Using a disputed domain name to redirect to Complainant’s official website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Direct Line Ins. plc v. Low-cost-domain, FA1007001337658 (Forum Sept. 8, 2010) (“The Panel finds that using Complainant’s mark in a domain name over which Complainant has no control, even if the domain name redirects to Complainant’s actual site, is not consistent with the requirements of [UDRP] ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii) . . .”). For this reason also, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s marks. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain names.
Indeed, as already noted, the disputed domain names resolve to websites that offer products that compete with those of Complainant. Use of a domain name to offer products or services that compete with a complainant’s business may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) or (iv). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) where the respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website upon which the respondent passes off as the complainant and offers online cryptocurrency services in direct competition with the complainant’s business); see also LoanDepot.com, LLC v. Kaolee (Kay) Vang-Thao, FA1762308 (Forum Jan. 9, 2018) (finding that the rrespondent’s use of the disputed domain name to offer competing loan services disrupts Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv).
Further, also as already noted, one of the disputed domain names was redirected to one of Complainant’s legitimate websites. Redirecting a disputed domain name to Complainant’s own website also reflects bad faith. See Verizon Trademark Servs. LLC v. Boyiko, FA1104001382148 (Forum May 12, 2011) (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name, even where it resolves to Complainant’s own site, is still registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also Phillips 66 Company v. mitchell, FA2103001938004 (Forum Apr. 26, 2021) (finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect internet traffic to Complainant’s genuine website established bad faith. “It is conceivable that by doing so Respondent is attempting to build consumer confidence regarding Respondent’s faux relationship with Complainant so that Respondent might inappropriately exploit such false confidence later on. Using the domain name in this manner deceptively suggests an affiliation between Respondent and Complainant which does not exist and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith pursuant Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv) on this ground also.
In addition, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: Respondent redirected one of the disputed domain names to one of Complainant’s legitimate websites. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Finally, Respondent displays a pattern of bad faith registration of disputed domain names containing Complainant’s marks by registering the four disputed domain names. Registration of multiple domain names containing a complainant’s mark can substantiate an argument that a respondent registered and uses a disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See NIKE, Inc., and Nike Innovate, C.V. v. Emile Boulanger, FA 1732458 (Forum July 3, 2017) (finding that registration of several infringing domain names in a case satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Angie Arendt / DIAHOST .CO / keith mosley, FA1805001789701 (Forum July 2, 2018) (finding that Respondent engaged in a pattern of bad faith and registration by registering multiple domain names that contain Complainant’s famous CATERPILLAR mark); see also Radisson Hotels Internation, Inc. v. Yue Mei Wang / Wang Yue Mei aka Pei Jun Gan / Gan Pei Jun / Jun Yu He / He Jun Yu / Denliyan, FA1504001615349 (Forum June 1, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s registration of the <radissonbluplazachongqing.com>, <radissonbluchongqingshapingba.com>, <radissonplazahoteltianjin.com>, and <radissonbluhotelshanghai.com> domain names, which all infringe on Complainant’s mark, constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
The Panel dismisses, without prejudice, the Complainant against the domain names <bink-camera.com>, <blinkcamera-us.shop>, and <blinkonline.shop>.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy for the domain names <blinkcamera.one>, <blinkingsmartproduct.info>, <outdoorcamera-blink.store>, and <ringsmartcam.shop>, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED for those domain names.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <blinkcamera.one>, <blinkingsmartproduct.info>, <outdoorcamera-blink.store>, and <ringsmartcam.shop> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
And it is Ordered that the <bink-camera.com>, <blinkcamera-us.shop>, and <blinkonline.shop> domain names REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: December 17, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page